4 ms·
My point is simply that you suggested that qualified immunity doesn't apply to this case, and I agree that it should not in principle but my understanding of th
by lukeschlather 5mo ago
My point is simply that you suggested that qualified immunity doesn't apply to this case, and I agree that it should not in principle but my understanding of the case law is that it typically does.
- parineum 5mo agoPeople talk about qualified immunity like it means a police officer is above the law. That's not true at all. When qualified immunity is working correctly, all it does is shift the liability from the individual to a higher authority (the department/city/state/etc). In this case, it doesn't apply because theft isn't part of an officer's regular duties. You can't sue an officer for taking your laptop and putting it in evidence. You can sue an officer for taking your laptop home.
- wat10000 5mo agoAnd it only shifts civil liability. The officer is still (according to the law if not actual practice) criminally culpable for illegal acts they perform.
- lukeschlather 5mo ago> You can sue an officer for taking your laptop home. Again, I agree with you that this should be true in principle, but I don't have faith that it will apply in this case, and this is contrary to the stated position of the police department.
- bdangubic 5mo ago> When qualified immunity is working correctly… When is this exactly? 52 years on this planet and am yet to witness this event… :)
- parineum 5mo agoThey don't write news stories about dogs biting men.